This is an archive of past discussions with User:N2e. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ok who is putting citation tags in. Is it really necessary for a list where the only content is a link to an article which will have the references and citations alluded to!!! Discuss? On checking Wikipedia:Citation needed it is not necessary to provide citations unless it would improve the article. In this form of list where there is no data other than the name a citation is superfluous.Petebutt (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand the need for citaions, WHERE NEEDED, but a simple list is not improved by them. Citations and references will be found at the relevant article. No problem with them staying bu t please do not use it as evidence for removal of the entries. The List of aircraft is very tolerant of redlinks as it gives an excellent reference of articles that need to be written and / or re-directs that need to be raised.Petebutt (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Happy to discuss it Petebutt. I have addressed your question on the Talk:List of aircraft (B) Talk page. Moreover, there is a bit fuller discussion of this topic on Talk:List of aircraft (T-Z), where additional editors have been discussing the topic. In any case, Wikipedia's policy of verifiability is not optional; it is a core policy. It does not exclude "List of ..." articles; but even if it did, it would not exclude claims that are red-linked, for which no Wikipedia article exists at all. In other words, each red-link in a "List of ..." aricle is an unsourced assertion. They could possibly be a "true" assertion—but without a reliable, secondary-sourcedinline citation, the claim does not belong in Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
AIV
The technical side of your report was fine, but we don't normally block for a single instance of vandalism. If it reoccurs after a series of graduated warnings then that's another matter - generally we expect to see vandalism past a level 4 warning. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk15:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I wasn't asking for a block. I simply used the TW automated tool to report obvious vandalism from an IP editor. I had never used that tool before and did not realize it would ask for administrator intervention; I thought it was just some sort of automated system for maintaining a list to watch for future vandalism from that IP. I won't use that tool anymore. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
AIV
Hi N2e,
You mentioned not being sure you'd reported User:83.178.145.231 to WP:AIV correctly, so I though I'd leave a brief note. We usually give editors a little breathing room to figure out how the place works before reporting them to AIV; there's vandalism, and then there's test edits, and a wide grey area in between. It's hard to know if they were going to continue messing around after a warning or two (in which case, we block), or would get the message and knock it off without blocking (always preferred, since quick blocks tend to reduce the chance of turning them from the dark side). The editor in question made only one edit, so another editor left a note on their talk page about it. This is spelled out in excruciating detail in the links in the AIV header, if you want to learn about the level-1 thru level-4 warnings, etc. I'd recommend it if you plan to whack vandalism with Twinkle frequently, not really necessary if this is a one off.
Well, only because I already had it typed out and in my clipboard for insertion at AIV, but you removed the report before I got to it. I wasn't going to waste the text though :) EyeSerenetalk15:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for helping me out. I was slower than you both. I was responding to the first note from EyeSerene, got an edit conflict, serveral business phone calls, etc. I likely won't use Twinkle much for that, but who knows. The Twinkle tool definitely did not inform me that I was notifying of a 4-time vandal, thought it would only make a record of the instance of vandalism I observed. Thanks again. N2e (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Unconstructive reversion
Regarding your reversion: I think your action was incorrect. The links to the articles are right there. You can click through and see - obviously different aircraft. If you think something needs a citation then the correct first action is not to revert a contribution unless you have good reason to think it is wrong. If you are in doubt there are numerous "citation required" tags for you to use. It is becoming increasingly difficult to contribute to the encyclopedia, and I have been doing so since the early days, as perhaps have you. It is not the case that every assertion requires a citation on pain of reversion. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You quote Jimmy Wales on your home page: "If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed." My emphasis. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem Paul. That was a mistake, my mistake. I looked and thought that aircraft was a redlink, which would have meant it was an unsourced claim. I have requested citations on many aircraft redlinks, where an aircraft is claimed to exist with no citation support whatsoever -- I don't think you will find any attempt on my part to tag live wikilinks that do not make additional assertions beyond the link. Thanks for fixing this, and for bringing this to my attention. N2e (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, N2e. You have new messages at Talk:ISS ECLSS.
Message added 08:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {Talkback} or {Tb} template.
Okay, so just how am I supposed to get "Navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true" to be a big help. What do I do now, with this new power tool, to quickly and efficiently fix DAB links? Thanks. N2e (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Start with this page. Choose an article, and find where it links to Flight dynamics. When you mouse over the link, a popup will show your options. Pick from the list of links in green at the bottom of the popup, and the rest will be straightforward. Usually you can find your link by searching the article page for "flight dynamics", but if it's piped, you have to click "Edit this page" and then search. (For instance, the first article in the list, Dualism has the link piped as [[Flight dynamics|Pitching]]. --JaGatalk17:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, great. Two things. 1) Thanks for the clarification that the piped stuff won't work with the nav popup tool; editing the page and then searching is exactly what I had to do on the several pages I have manually fixed the DABs in. 2) However, I can't make the tool work at all the way you say. When I rollover Dualism, I don't see the link piped as [[Flight dynamics|Pitching]], the way you described. Also, I see no links in green at the bottom of the popup. Any guesses as to what I'm doing wrong? N2e (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
My fault, I didn't describe it well. Go to Dualism, search for Pitching, and mouse over the "Pitching" link. Then you'll see the popup. Flight dynamics is a tough one because almost every one I've checked has been piped! That's not the usual way. --JaGatalk18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW I'm watching your talk page so you don't have to bother with the Talkback templates if you don't want to.
Okay, got it now. I understand why most won't work with the navpops tool. Moreover, I just got one to work, for the first time, the Pitch article which I just fixed using the navpops tool. Thanks for all your help on this! Best, N2e (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, on a related topic, I just observed that someone has turned the Flight dynamics disambig page, into a regular article page. So I guess the article-by-article disambigs, although perhaps helpful, may not actually be required. Hmmm... N2e (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for your help on this. I did maybe ten or fifteen manually, and a few where the NavPopups worked. The rest can just stay now. N2e (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Giving references at List of Aircraft
Dear N2e, I am very glad you have taken your stand. Seems like everyone was for being able to leave a reference (for the red links especially). But I have a feeling they will kick this upstairs to the administrators, and you will be reversed. I troll a lot of the magazines and I will come across articles with photos of little known aircraft. I have to really jump some hoops to get the link posted so someone searching for info on the subject can have a clue what the aircraft is, etc. If you have a chance check out the "Curtiss-Bleeker" in the Cs to see the length you have to go to without having to write a stub page. It is ridiculous. Again, thanks. And I hope it stands. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC
Thanks for the feedback. Well, it pretty much has to stand. After some serious time has passed to allow interested editors to source, WP verifiability policy is pretty clear that the unsourced stuff can be removed until it is cited. I'm always quite patient to improve articles only very gradually, simply asking that the unsourced stuff become verifiable, or take a time out from Wikipedia until a source is found. I will try to look at the "Curtiss-Bleeker" item some time when I have a lot of spare Wikipedia time. Not tonight. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear N2e, Well we will see what happens. I have divided the references into two categories. The first one titled "References (general)" and the second one "References (red links)". The first list is for material like "The World's Aircraft", etc that deal with describing various aircraft. It does not have the "Reflist" tag. The second one is for red links. Unlike green links which have pages with references, there are no references for red links. They are little known aircraft. The second reference category does have the "Reflist" tag. That way there is some proof that red link aircraft have existed and with some small news article, etc. I have changed two sections of the List of Aircraft. The section that deals with the Ns (a little known tailless design by Neiuport in the 1930s) and the Js for the Junkers J.1000 a huge trans-Atlantic quasi-flying wing design of the 1920s-1930s that reached the mockup stage bug was never built. Hope the change sticks. But something has to be done about those red links till a page is written, if ever. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I looked at what you did on the List of aircraft (N-Q) article. I think that what you did for the redlink Nieuport-Delage NiD 120 aircraft, which was to add a bonafide citation, per WP:CS is just fine. If that same sort of thing were to be done for the redlinked claims, as far as I'm concerned, everything would be fine. The claim that the aircraft exists, or ever existed, is supported by whatever single citation anyone can find. The redlink need not ever by removed if noone ever writes an article about the aircraft. If no source is found however, I will start to (temporarily, pending a source) remove the redlinks from the List of aircraft ... articles after a couple of months have passed with the {{citation needed}} tag requesting a source. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to The Downlink · Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects · User Activity Checks
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Future issues will contain information on issues under discussion, newly featured content, and articles written by members of the project to appear in the newsletter. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter. If you were not aware of being a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, membership of the former Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight and Space colonization WikiProjects was merged into WikiProject spaceflight during the reorganisation of the spaceflight projects, for more details, please see below.
Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects
The ongoing discussion of the future of Space WikiProjects has been making progress. WikiProject Space was abolished on 5 December 2010, with the Spaceflight, Astronomy and Solar System projects becoming independent of each other. On the same day, an assessment banner, {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} was created for WikiProject Spaceflight to replace the generic space one which had been used previously. On 9 December, WikiProject Space Colonization was abolished, with its tasks being subsumed into WikiProject Spaceflight. On 12 December, the Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight WikiProjects became task forces of WikiProject Spaceflight, whilst WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight became a working group.
A number of issues are still under discussion:
Introducing better defined assessment criteria and an A-class review process
Setting clearer importance criteria for assessing articles
Establishing a joint task force with the Astronomy and Solar System projects to cover space telescopes and planetary probes
Defining the roles of projects, taskforces and working groups, and processes for establishing new ones
A series of checks are underway to establish the numbers of users who are still active within WikiProject Spaceflight, its task forces and working group. All usernames on the members lists were struck out, and members were asked to unstrike their own names if they were still an active member of the project. If you wish to do so, and have not already, please unstrike your name from the master list, plus the lists on any applicable task forces or working groups
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Welldone for your work on Jos,today.But you removed the civilian governors section,dont you think it is needfull.Thanks Earlymen (talk) 04:02,28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think it would help the article; but as it stood, it all appeared to be made up out of whole cloth. It was not verifiable. I am hoping that someone who can locate sources will add it back to the article, with sources. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to The Downlink·Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics·Salyut 2
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements.
Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content.
All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details.
Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal.
New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented.
Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it.
Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised.
One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{WikiProject Space}} and {{WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class.
News from Orbit
On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article.
On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles.
On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite.
17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles.
Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space ShuttleChallenger on mission STS-51-L.
Article News
It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight.
Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain.
Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.
Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited.
The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts.
Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics
There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic.
Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project.
One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative.
To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN.
This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided.
I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content.
Selected Article – Salyut 2
Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission.
The Salyut 2 article describes the station:
“
Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyutspace stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973.
”
The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Good question Pengortm. No, I never did find a way to do that.
When I already have a source, and source notes from my reading of that source, extensively described in EndNote, it sure would be a useful feature to be able to pump out a Wikipedia citation in "{{cite ...}}" format that I could just cut and paste into a Wikipedia article. Should you locate anything, I'll appreciate it if you let me know about it. Good luck. N2e (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Template
Hey N2e, I apologise, things have been very busy for me lately. After this weekend, I'll be done with classes for this semester, so time should be more accommodating. I promise I'll get it done, just be patient with me :) — Huntster (t@c)03:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey. No problem. You do lot of good wiki-work. I just think your work on the template will be much better than mine, and with the Dragon C1 launch this week, it will be a great time to get a template in place that explicitly allows for crewed/uncrewed(cargo) and return to earth vs. burn up in the atmosphere, etc. I'm plenty patient. N2e (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
N2e, I don't know if you follow this, but it was suggested there that I should complain about the issue we have at WP:AN/I. I understand that you follow the letter of WP:V/WP:BURDEN/etc. and technically don't violate the policies; and I assume good faith; but you refused to do anything (or even to comment) about the two examples of tagged/deleted data pieces backed by external sources at the wikilinked articles, you refuse to change your editing process and involve a step "check at wikilinked article for sources before tagging/deleting" - and there is high probability that continuing this will eventually result in deleting all data pieces in these articles. Are you OK for me to open a WP:AN/I? Alinor (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I am always happy to have my work reviewed. You are welcome to invite an Administrator to do so.
Here is the article Talk page with a four-month-long discussion between us. If you look through the entire conversation—here—I think you will see good faith on my part from the beginning, and a repeated desire to keep the conversation about "the contribution and not the contributor" and "improving the article, not about the editor."
Here is a discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, initiated by Alinor, where s/he attempted to get a determination that WP:V policy does not apply to list articles, or other comparison articles: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_87#Sourcing_required_in_lists_linking_to_other_articles Alinor was not successful, and had several editors state explicitly that claims on such articles should be sourced, per standard Wikipedia policy, and long-held interpretations of that policy on other similar articles.
Failing that, Alinor then made a proposal on the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability page that Wikipedia Verifiabilty policy be changed, with a carve-out exception that "sources at appropriately wikilinked articles do not need to have these sources copied into the summarizing article itself" if the source is cited in another Wikipedia article. The proposal, and the response from many editors, is here: entitled Sourcing for summarizing articles. This proposal seems—to understate it just a bit—to not be achieving a consensus for a change to Wikipedia Verifiability policy.
So now, if a review is to occur (a "step 4" it would appear), it seems sensible to set out the three key (and extensive discussions that have preceeded the (potential) request by Alinor for Administrator review of my editing. As always, happy to discuss improving Wikipedia, N2e (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, I have endeavored to correctly summarize the three previous conversations. If you think I may not have accurately characterized the main points in the three numbered sections above, please let me know your suggested changes and I will go in and edit those sections as appropriate. I don't want to mischaracterize your position in any way. However, I would like to keep the thread intact so ask that you not insert text in the middle of my summary above. N2e (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, I have deleted your recent set of comments to my Talk page, and moved them, complete and intact, to the Talk:Comparison of heavy lift launch systems where we've been discussing those topics for four months now. As I've told you before, I will no longer discuss my editing process with you, nor what I choose to spend my time on when I volunteer time to Wikipedia. The comments removed from my Talk page are, of course, fully visible via the history of the page database, as well as on the Talk:Comparison of heavy lift launch systems page.
Please do not make any more comments on my Talk page. I will discuss article improvement (on article CONTENT, not on my editing process) with you on any article page in the mainspace, but you are no longer welcome on my Talk page, because of incessant badgering about something we've already fully discussed in item no. 1 above.
Please do bring on the ANI you suggested if you are so inclined; I'm happy to have this four-month long discussion reviewed by a third party, but do not continue to badger me with questions about why I won't do editing work that you are interested in having done but apparently will not do yourself. N2e (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Bills are not automatically reintroduced
If a bill does not pass in Congress, it dies. It can be reintroduced in the next Congress (2 year term), but that is not automatic. Your "when" comment is very appropriate, though. Note that Fair Tax has never been voted on, even at the committee level. Oldtaxguy (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on that point. Then I was correct in thinking that the claims in the article were rather out of date. N2e (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
A particularly concise and cogent explanation of specific impulse
The following is a comment left in October 2010 on the Talk:Rocket propellant Talk page. I thought it particularly good, and will leave it here in the comments for others to see. Clear, concise, cogent and very helpful to the lay person in getting over the "why is ISP measured in units of seconds" question. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Specific impulse is the average exhaust velocity divided by the acceleration of gravity, taken to be 9.80665 meters/sec/sec (approximately 32.174 ft/sec/sec). From Newton's Second Law, the thrust of a rocket engine equals the mass flow rate times the average exhaust velocity. Hence, average exhaust velocity is a measure of rocket engine performance. Typical average exhaust velocities range from about 800 m/sec for black powder rockets to 4565 m/sec for the highest performing oxygen/hydrogen rocket engines. (Electric thrusters have much higher exhaust velocities.) In English speaking countries it is customary to describe flow rates in pounds/second, but pounds are units of force, not of mass. The unit of mass is the slug, which actually weighs 32.174 pounds. To convert pounds/second to slugs/second, one must divide by the acceleration of gravity, 32.174 ft/sec/sec. That is how the custom arose of describing rocket engine performance in terms of "specific impulse" which is the average exhaust velocity divided by "g" (9.80665 m/s/s or 32.174 ft/s/s). To convert specific impulse back to average exhaust velocity, simply multiply by the acceleration of gravity. Magneticlifeform (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not even interesting as history (dividing by g to get convert imperial unit to mass). It's worse than wrong. First, I don't see anything "cogent" in introducing arcane stuff like slugs in the lede, when you're right in the middle of explaining something else. Moreover, I think the explanation above is physically wrong, inasmuch as it tries to "explain" the need to divide by g to get units of force (thrust) from "mass flow" * "exhaust velocity". The latter is m/t * v = mv/t, but that does indeed give units of thrust = force. HOWEVER, specific impulse is not thrust and it never has force units. So, all this is more complicated, and bad physics AS WELL.
Dimensionally, specific impulse (Isp) is presented in two different basic dimensional forms: as momentum/mass = velocity, AND as momentum/weight = mv/mg = v/g = time. This is independent of whether SI or Imperial units are used. The "explanation" of needing to divide by a weight, works to explain the "time unit" specific impulse (Isp in sec), but not for the "velocity unit" specific impulse (Isp in ft/sec or m/sec or whatever velocity units you like). SBHarris18:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·The Charts·Yuri Gagarin
Project News
A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing.
A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles.
The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field.
Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list.
Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved.
A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them).
Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk·contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project.
News from orbit
Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article.
On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission.
The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January.
Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit.
A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating.
The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated.
On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space ShuttleDiscovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank.
At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February.
Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable.
Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria.
Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved.
A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle
Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article.
Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight.
There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories.
Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968.
His article describes him and his spaceflight experience:
On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky.
”
The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Hi N2e; I noticed you recently added a citation needed tag for a statement about the origins of the X-33. This statement was easily found in one of the external links; even easier if you use google. As a regular to spaceflight articles, I assume you know NASA provides pretty much all of its documents online, so my question is, why didn't you simply add the reference yourself? Mlm42 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a much fuller summary of my thoughts on this topic here, in a discussion that you have personally weighed in on. See "the end of the matter" subsection for the summary. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I think everyone agrees we need more references (see Category:Wikipedia backlog). But ask yourself, are you adding the citation needed tags for the readers or for other editors? When readers see a "citation needed" tag, it makes them think that somebody, somewhere genuinely has a reason to doubt this statement. Indeed, the guideline WP:NOCITE suggests we tag statements which are "doubtful". If there are generally problems regarding lack of inline citations, then just add {{More footnotes}} to the section, or article, and add the citation needed tags to particularly doubtful statements. If I understand your position correctly, your motivation for adding the citation needed tags is to get other editors to act, rather than to bring doubt into the reader's mind. Is that right?
No, that is not my position. Other editors might cite it, or they might not. I'm agnostic on whether that happens or doesn't. And I don't force other editors to work on any particular thing with the time they donate to Wikipedia. See the "end of the matter" I previously referred you to and search for "In my view, Wikipedia is improved in one of two ways" I don't really have any motivation to discuss it much more deeply than that right now. N2e (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I suppose an editor would be within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia if they added {{cn}} to every single unsourced sentence, regardless of whether the editor genuinely doubted the sentence.. but this doesn't seem very helpful to readers or other editors. I think it would be better to use {{More footnotes}}, or bring up issues on the talk page. Mlm42 (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I hear your preference. But it has been my experience that most editors, on most articles in Wikipedia, will not support part two of the "two ways" forward without the more specific {{citation needed}} tags on specific claims. N2e (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Right, so you're adding the tag for the editors, not for the readers. I'm just saying it's better to add tags like this to article space only if you think the reader should see them. One of the reasons editors react, is because they don't want the reader to be faced with a citation needed tag unnecessarily; in other words, you're kicking (knowingly or not) other editors into action. Which is fine, you're within your rights to do it if you want, I'm just saying that one reason people are objecting to these actions sometimes, is because they seem unfriendly. Mlm42 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it would be best if folks assumed good faith, but humans are humans and will take things that are article-improvement related as "unfriendly" to some or the other particular editor. I guess if the authors who first added the claimsjust ensured they were sourced, there would be a lot less need for identifying the unsourced assertions and then patiently allowing a lot of time to pass to see if anyone wants to source the claims. But do note however, if there is some article you are working on, and you would prefer that I remove some of the individual requested cite tags that I added and replace them with a more general section-level or article-level tag, and then you would go forward citing the most important claims that in your view, as one of the authors, would most make the article better, just ask on my Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.
Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!
Hey there. One of the classes working with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, Jonathan Obar's Media and Telecommunication Policy, is working in small groups and would like us to assign a mentor to each group (rather than having students request the mentors they'd like, as other classes are doing).
I invite you to sign on as the mentor for one or more groups, especially if any of the topics catch your interest. To sign up, go to the course page and add yourself as "Mentor: you" in the section for that group. They students and/or professor or campus ambassadors should be cleaning things up soon to list all the usernames for each group and add a few more groups. Once you know who the students are in the group, you can leave them each a quick introduction to let them know you'll be mentoring their group.
There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger.
An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project.
User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation.
News from orbit
Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites.
A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space ShuttleDiscovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not.
Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed.
4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data Systemcommunications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew.
On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear.
Article news
Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities.
Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected.
It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user.
Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed.
A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy.
A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain.
A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions.
It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested.
Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list.
Editorial: Direction of the Project
Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project.
Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far.
Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks.
Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.
In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-)
The Charts
Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off.
Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it:
Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage.
The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects :
Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches
Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch
Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred
Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled
The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed.
”
The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Hello, I have updated the Project Page you are mentoring on with usernames for all the students in your Area of Study. Please send them a message introducing yourself and let them know you are there to help.
You are quite welcome. That was a great piece of work to help out Wikipedia! Any kudos you receive are well deserved. N2e (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As part of this course, I had hoped to work on an article related to technology and development. Specifically, I hoped to include information related to the concepts behind the Design for the Other 90% exhibit at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum. I was thinking of either editing the Appropriate Technology article (specifically the [technology in developing areas] section) to include more information on design, appropriate technology, and development or creating a new article for this information.
I would appreciate any advice related to this plan, in particular your thoughts on editing the existing article to expand the section on appropriate technology in developing areas or beginning a new article. I find the appropriate technology article to be a little overwhelming, probably due to the poor organization and the almost "dump" of information.
Sure, I would be glad to be your mentor on your project. I am uncertain how much help I will be with the content of your work, but will definitely agree to assist you in your project if you want me to be your mentor, majoring on the Wikipedia side of things, and perhaps offering you a useful "big picture" perspective on how any good Wikipedia article emerges. Having said that, I do have some personal background with understanding, and implementing, appropriate technology (for a U.S. "developed nation" situation -- more about that later if you are interested) and have read a bit on AT more broadly (although that was quite some time ago), so I would imagine I might provide some assistance on the content as well. I will look more carefully at your specific early requests, and read the pages about your WikiProject, course, and the existing Appropriate Technology article tomorrow morning. Take a look at my User page to learn a bit more about me, and let me know explicitly if you want to go ahead with me as your mentor. Cheers. N2e (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay then, we are good to go. I've added you to my [list] and am now full. I will comment on your specific early questions later this morning. N2e (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Marking articles students are working on
Howdy, Online Ambassador!
This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:
Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.
And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.
Okay, I have done no. 1 and no. 3 for one of the two projects (one of the four editors I am currently mentoring). Will wait for the other students to get active on their article before doing nos. 1-3 for that article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Notice of edit of page that is of interest to you
I've edited the Great Pacific Garbage Patch to include a mass media reference, as well as to remove gross misrepresentation of a certain academic paper, which, ironically enough, is publicly available. The mass media reference, incidentally, quotes the primary author of the paper in question, seven years after the publication of the paper in question, to the effect that the plastic density is one thousand times greater than that extrapolated from his paper by a dishonest wikipedia author, who shall probably remain anonymous, or at least not be exposed due to my efforts. The paper considers plastic particulates in the neuston, and the wikipedia article in the original form falsely implied that the paper was calculating the total platic mass in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. I deliver this notice so as to avoid editing wars, as I'd like either an accurately cited paper to the effect of the original claim (I'll notice in passing that the claim made also constituted original research), or that the undocumented claim not be returned. I realise that you might not be the author of that claim. Boeremoer (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Got a message about an hour ago from Professor Obar of the Media and Telecommunication Policy project and I think it is viewed best in full:
Can you please communicate to the online mentors that I DO NOT want them moving student material into the main space for them. This is a big problem. I have noticed that this has happened with a number of the projects already, for example, in the broadband.gov article and the media cross-ownership article. We need the students to be doing this on their own, of course so they can learn how to do it, and also so that I can grade what they've done. How am I supposed to follow student submissions if the data is associated with online mentors? A BIG PROBLEM ALREADY... please help me with this. None of you responded to my post about this on the discussion page. This is about to get out of hand. Jaobar (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
With that, of course, please only give instructions on how to move, don't do it for them. Please only let them know what to do and let them do it themselves. If they run into problems, provide further instructions. Do not it for them. This seems to be making a mess of Prof. Obar's grading system and I would like to avoid that. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem here. I am "coaching" only, and not "doing". Seems like that is what mentoring ought to be: you know, teaching them to fish not handing them a fish. N2e (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.
Where the courses are - A brief summary of how each of the 31 Public Policy Initiative courses are faring so far in the Spring 2011 term, as of 9-11 March. Feel free to add more detail.
Tracking students' articles - Make sure students' articles are tagged with {{WAP assignment}} on the talk pages, and have the newly improved Article Feedback Tool active.
Online Ambassadors logistics - If you don't have a Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt, now's your chance to get one! (Also, some other more mundane, but important, details.)
Steering committee preparing proposals - Look for discussions about two major proposals about the future ambassador program soon: the "Regional Ambassador" role, and elections for a new committee.
N2e, I was hoping you could advise me on undoing an edit someone recently made to the Appropriate technology page. They changed the spelling of industrialized to British version: industrialised. As this is the only British-English spelling I can find on the page (utilizing is used in the same paragraph and not utilising, practice is also used throughout the article and not pratise), I was going to change it back to the American-English version. Is that an acceptable thing to do? Thanks for the help. EstellaGr8 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
First off, I think your intuitive sense of things is about right. I have not looked at the page to consider which type of English spelling, but your intuition is what I usually see: if one type of English spelling is used on a page, it probably should not be changed. However, I do think you should familiarize yourself with the WP manual of style on the topic, it is here.
If the change back is liable to be contentious (and I have no idea at all if it is), then it can be good practice to mention your logic for it, proposal, etc. on the Talk page first. That gives you a chance to build a consensus with other editors.
Having said that, Wikipedia encourages editors to be WP:BOLD, but then offers WP:BRD as a useful process for making it all work out if there is contention on an issue. Some editor is Bold and makes a change to an article (say, use of British English in a word); then some other editor, if they don't think that is quite right, can Revert; then there can/should be a Discussion on the Talk page. Using this logic, it is quite acceptable to just revert it, and invite discussion on the talk page.
At the end of the day, use either approach you think feels right for this circumstance. I will join in on the Talk page (and read the relevant background) at such time as the discussion makes it to that point. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Posting Photos
Hey, sorry I havent communicated with you about the Spectrum Auction project. Currently, we have an assignment where we have to do random edits on other wiki pages. I chose to update some things about the cast of The Cosby Show but I cant figure out how to add a picture to the biography section (the long box on the right hand side of the pages). I saw the code from the page on the actual show but I dont know how to get the photos to show up on the page Im doing. I would appreciate any help, thanks.
Rough draft of Appropriate Technology edits in sandbox
N23, I have started working on my proposed edits to the Appropriate Technology article in my sandbox. What I have written so far is my proposed lede. I have set it up to mirror how I imagine the outline of the article would be best organized (definition/history, developing country applications, developed country applications, examples). I have included two questions related to citation. One is a technical question about using Wikipedia citation style and the other is a question about what to cite and when. I will also update my section on the talk page for the article with a link to my sandbox so the Wiki community can comment. I appreciate your help and advice. EstellaGr8 (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I have answered the first of your two questions, on your sandbox talk page. Other answer to come later. N2e (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
India pilot being organized now - Plans are currently underway for a pilot expansion of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – in India! Hisham Mundol and other Wikimedia staff have begun recruiting Campus Ambassador candidates for Pune.
Document DYK, peer review and other milestone at the trophy case - If students you are working with (or any others you notice) are doing work that makes to DYK, is nominated for Good Article status, or is just solid content worth marking, then please help us document the students' success at the trophy case.
Changes to mailing list - A new low-volume mailing list, [Ambassador-announce-l], is being created. It will be reserved for key announcements and news, which we'd like all ambassadors to be subscribed to.
Hey N2e, this is Letia from the Spectrum Auction group. I was just checking in to let you know what we are doing. We havent posted on wikipedia becuase we are putting all of our info in a google docs page for editing and revising. One of our group members isnt doing anything so me and the other guy have been putting in a lot of work. Tomorrow, im going to be posting up some background information in addition to what is already on the page. We have a lot of information to sort out so we are going to be doing a lot of stuff this weekend.
Okay, I added a little snapshot of one section I am going to be adding to the page. I have a lot more, Im just finally getting everything down in a typed document. Most of what I have is just research. Our group is having a really hard time becuase one person hasnt done ANYTHING. I finally got a hold of my other group member and we had a lengthy talk about how important this project is. I am the only person who has been in contact with you and I have let them know that we are not about to be doing this at the last possible second. This weekend, you should see a lot of work being added. I told my group member that we need to get 900 words up in the next 4 days. And we have been making good progress towards that. I added some of my draft material for you to see on my sandbox. I actually posted it up on our topic page as well. I still have a lot of in text linking to due back to certain wiki pages, I will get to that in our final moments next week. I am really trying to focus on getting all this text out and onto our page. Expect to see more for us this weekend.
Letia, I really appreciate you getting engaged on this project, and I have a strong desire to help/mentor you and your fellow team members in successfully becoming Wikipedia editors and in making some sort of substantive improvements to the Spectrum auction article.
Having said that, and contrary to the rather copious time I had to help you in the past two months, I have become slammed right now in my work and personal life, so I now have had MUCH less time for Wikipedia in the past few days, and will have a lot less going forward. But I am committed to helping with the mentoring as previously agreed. It just won't be as much as it would have been had you and your fellow students engaged with me much earlier in the project.
I will endeavor to get online late this weekend and offer some reviewer eyes to any work you've done, and help with you learning your way around the Wikipedia. Best regards, N2e (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have read the new section (Innovation) you recently added to Spectrum auction article. I have flagged several concepts and some prose for clarification; requested better sourcing of the claims you have made; and done some (very) minor copyediting. I don't want to rewrite the material, or even edit heavily, as I think that is a vital and important part of what the student's should endeavor to do in the Public Policy wiki project. Some of the requisite clarification could be added by finding appropriate Wikipedia articles and linking them within the prose you added.
If you need help with how to do certain tasks in Wikipedia, please ask, or see some of the links on your Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have MOVED this conversation over to the Spectrum auction Talk page. Please add additional comments there for detailed discussion about article improvement.
Feel free to ask general questions about Wikipedia editing here on my Talk page, or there on the article Talk page, as you wish. N2e (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Instead of clicking on the link, I figured I could just say I forgot what that talkback was about. Don't worry about being busy, I totally understand. EstellaGr8 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research
Hi N2e/Archive 2,
Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!
Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey
Hi Ambassador,
We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.
WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk
Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!
Hello, N2e. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.
In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.
Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.
Done, and I have continued to participate in the various related discussions and consensus building on the items you have proposed. N2e (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
Watching out for the class as a whole
Helping students to get community feedback on their work
This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.
You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.
Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.
If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.
Hi N2e! I'm in the process of trying to find Online Ambassadors to support each of the classes for this coming term, and there are a few I thought you'd be a good fit for: New Media and Development and New Media: Innovation, Community, and Dissidence". If you're up for supporting one or both of those classes, please check out the Memorandum of Understanding (linked above) which sketches the expectations for Online Ambassadors this term, and then you can sign on to class and get in touch with the professor(s).
Thanks for asking, Sage. I've been thinking very hard about your invitation. While I greatly enjoyed the mentoring I did last spring, I'm a bit too slammed to try to take it on this fall, in addition to my other jobs. So my Wiki-time has been in very short supply in the past few months, and will be even more scarce this fall term. So good on ya' for your work on this wiki-mentoring project, but I will have to bow out for the fall term. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your addition of a template inside of a template because it disrupted the entire appearance of the original template inside of articles (it was very messy looking). I also replied here. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The 2013/2014 date you listed isn't for the first FH flight, that date is when the rocket would launch from the Cape (from a second launch pad).--Craigboy (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I saw the clear language about launch dates and missed the location, a second launch site. N2e (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
CHON
Glad to look at that article; but would advise you that in discussing science fiction, especially scientifically-sound science fiction, you avoid the term "sci fi" or any derivative thereof. The term is traditionally considered a pejorative, fit only for the Syfylis Channel and other venues where actual science fiction standards such as scientific accuracy, intelligent plots, plausible dialogue, etc. are not valued. --Orange Mike | Talk16:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at the CHON article! And cool info. I did not know that. I'm sure I was just using it to type fewer letters in a standard, abbreviation sort of what. But that is very good to know. N2e (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't know anything about this particular subject, but I'm happy to try to help you with your general question on etiquette, and removing links to unsourced material more generally.
First off, I think your approach to User:Gracefool is a good one. Polite, more asking than telling, showing a teachable spirit, etc.
I agree with his request to you on Wikilinks; but I suspect you just do not currently know how to do what he is asking. So learn away. Instead of "The main page for them is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Spyware_Coalition and their off-site website is: http://www.antispywarecoalition.org/", try using "The main page for them is: Anti-Spyware_Coalition and their off-site website is: [1]"; or maybe, "The main page for them is: Anti-Spyware_Coalition and this is the ASW off-wiki website", instead. Just look at my text in an edit window and you'll see how to encode wikilink and external links in wiki markup.
On removing dead links: while it may be appropriate to remove a no longer valid link right away, especially if the link is used in the "External links" section of a Wikipedia article, you might want to try a different and more friendly to other editors strategy. Just add the 12 characters "{{deadlink}}" after the offending link, which will add a smallfont tag of {{deadlink}} to the article. My view is that it is best to tag the deadlink, so editors who care, or know more on a subject, have an opportunity to remedy the problem. If I happen on such an article, with the tagged {{deadlink}} more than a month or two old, I would generally just remove the link entirely.
BTW, when you add a cleanup tag, in simple form as I described above, a bot will automagically show up in a day or two to add the current date to the tag. This allows other editors to, later on, know how long the tag has been there. Here is a list of cleanup tags: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup Go easy on using them until you are very experienced. Some editors find these tags to be "unfriendly" and may fail to impute good faith to other editors who use too many of them in a single article. Generally, the inline tags cause a bit less grief.
